While scientists hotly debate the existence of cancer stem cells, three related new studies, all conducted on mice, provide some supporting evidence.

Stem cells are the foundation for healthy cell growth in the body. Some researchers believe that malignant stem cells also existso-called cancer stem cells that generate tumors and resist treatment by simply re-growing afterward.

"Cancer stem cells are still controversial, but with progress in studies like these, it's less about whether they exist and more about 'what does this mean?'" said Dr. Max Wicha, director of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, who is familiar with the new findings.

In my opinion.... There may be stem cells associated with 'cancer'. This would be no surprise because 'cancer' is not a 'bug' one can eliminate.

Cells are created, and die, all the time. As long as More live than die, we are good.

When it's the other way around, it's a tumor. If the die-off spreads to other areas, it is malignant.

Since doctors seem to label CANCER as a CONDITION (correct me if I'm wrong), then we know the condition doesn't have stem cells. The stem cells may belong to the dying/dead cells that the 'condition' has overtaken.

What causes the 'condition'? I.E. What causes the cells to suddenly expire ?

Even they say they don't know.

2
posted on 08/01/2012 2:07:57 PM PDT
by UCANSEE2
(Help. How do I put something in my tagline.)

This is a very exciting breakthrough. While treatments may still be years away, this points to the potential methods of early identification (including in healthy people with family history and/or genetic predisposition to certain kinds of cancer) and possible early treatments and/or prevention of cancers through eradication, deactivation or replacement of the malignant stem cells. Also, the chances of regrowth after the now-considered successful therapy may be more predictable through analysis of the potentially remaining malignant stem cells.

The delivery mechanism of the drugs may now be affected to include not only where (locale) the "smart drugs" need to go to minimize the damage to healthy tissues, but also looking for and exterminating the cancer stem cells, which until now were masked as "healthy" tissues, leading to substantially decreasing chances for cancer regrowth, i.e., effectively achieving "permanent" remission.

Researchers have discovered the cells in tumours that seem to be responsible for the regrowth of tumours.

Three separate studies on mice appear to have confirmed the view that the growth of tumours is driven by so-called cancer stem cells.

The researchers claim to have resolved one of the biggest controversies in cancer research and say their work marks a "paradigm shift" in the field.

The studies have been published in the journals, Nature and Science.

Doctors often successfully reduce the size of tumours through various therapies, but often patients suffer a relapse and the tumour regrows.

Some researchers believe that this happens because therapies fail to eradicate a small proportion of cells that drive tumour growth known as cancer stem cells. They believe that these are the cells that should be targeted to eliminate the tumour forever.

Evidence for the existence of cancer stem cells has been weak. But now three separate groups of researchers working independently have found direct evidence of cancer stem cells driving tumour growth in brain, gut and skin cancers.

The suggestion is that the same may be true of all cancers which produce solid tumours. ..... < snip >

..... The newly-identified cancer stem cells are very similar to healthy stem cells responsible for growing and renewing tissue in the body. Any therapy to target cancer stem cells may also destroy healthy tissues. A priority for researchers will be to see if there are important differences between normal and cancer stem cells so that therapies can distinguish between them. ..... < snip >

..... "Cancer stem cells change the paradigm. The goal of shrinking tumours may well turn out to be less important than targeting the cancer cells in that tumour." ..... < snip >

When cancers are treated, tumors may shrink but then come roaring back. Now studies on three different types of tumors suggest a key reason why: The cancers are fueled by stem cells that chemotherapy drugs don't kill.

The findings - made by independent research teams that used mice to study tumors of the brain, intestines and skin - could change the approach to fighting cancers in humans, experts said.

Properties of these so-called cancer stem cells can be investigated so researchers can devise strategies for killing them off, said Luis F. Parada, a molecular geneticist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and senior author of one of the studies published Wednesday. ..... < snip >

..... The three papers published by the journals Nature and Science "really should seal the deal," said cancer biologist Owen Witte, director of the Broad Stem Cell Research Center at UCLA.

"People can stop arguing," he said. "Now they can say, 'OK, the cells are here. We now need to know how to treat them.' "

All three studies used molecular tricks that allowed scientists to mark certain tumor cells with bright colors. When these marked cells divided, all of the daughter cells were similarly colored. This permitted the researchers to see whether any old cell in a tumor can continue to fuel its growth or if only a subset of cells is responsible.

The three groups used different experimental approaches and different kinds of cancer, but all of them found the latter to be true. ..... < snip >

This breakthrough and the advances in targeted drug delivery mechanisms, including new targeted genetic cells modification mechanisms may soon give hope of effective "permanent" treatment to millions of people suffering from cancers.

5
posted on 08/02/2012 6:23:16 PM PDT
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

The people who are successful become vested in their ideas, Dr. Bissell said. It becomes extraordinarily difficult for new ideas to find their way.

Our current medical development model, even before Obamacare, is extremely socialistic. A narrow elite can block or control or limit research as well as implementation. If American medicine is to continue to thrive Obamacare must not only be turned back, but the entire system brought into accord with economic liberty.

The people who are successful become vested in their ideas, Dr. Bissell said. It becomes extraordinarily difficult for new ideas to find their way.

The inertia, entrenched vested special interests and inevitable corruption are the natural legacies of bad ideas from politicians, governments and bureaucracy.

The "celebration" of the NHS at the London Olympics' opening ceremony and the fawning coverage of it by the American media reporters ("... and it's free!") were - for those familiar with the system's gross deficiencies and failures, such as chronic lack of timely resources and services - grotesque.

Our current medical development model, even before Obamacare, is extremely socialistic. A narrow elite can block or control or limit research as well as implementation. If American medicine is to continue to thrive Obamacare must not only be turned back, but the entire system brought into accord with economic liberty.

America's biggest economic problem today is health care. Health care is consuming more than 18% of GDP and, if unchecked, that number could grow to 35% by midcentury. It could bankrupt the government and lead to economic collapse.

The Supreme Court has upheld most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  otherwise known as Obamacare  but the new law isn't the right solution. In spite of its laudable objectives, the administration's health-care initiative most likely will make the problem even worse.

Obamacare addresses only two of the three key elements of the health-care problem: It attempts to expand access to medical treatment by increasing coverage under private insurance and Medicaid; it attempts to control the costs of medical treatment, which have been growing at very high rates.

While these two goals sound reasonable, they are in fact contradictory. ..... < snip >

..... The combination of increased demand and restricted supply can only result in a new wave of rising prices or a rationing of available care  or both. It's a fundamental law of economics.

What Obamacare failed to include  and what most other recent legislative debate between the right and left has ignored  is the third element essential to any successful reform of America's health-care system. We need a radical increase in the overall supply of medical services  one sufficient to meet higher demand and provide services at lower costs without rationing.

What is needed to stabilize the longer-term economics of America's health-care system is such an expansion in the rate of growth in overall medical services that it exceeds the rate of increase in demand, thereby resulting in a drop in total health-care expenditures as a percentage of gross domestic product (not merely cuts in the price of individual doctor fees and procedures). ..... < snip >

..... Sadly, no one is currently looking at all three sides of the health-care problem. The left wants greater access and more insurance coverage for everyone, the right wants better health care but at a significantly lower cost  and neither side will yet listen to the other. It's a dialogue of the deaf, with both sides ignoring the all-important supply side of the equation. ..... < snip >

10
posted on 08/05/2012 4:51:13 AM PDT
by CutePuppy
(If you don't ask the right questions you may not get the right answers)

And the supply-side is the most easily expanded. Reduced licensing requirements, allow cross state medical licensing, allow Walmart, Walgreens, Costco, etc. to work their market magic and you’ll see healthcare costs plummet.

What the GOP has failed to do is recognize the supply side solutions. Why not have a national medical license that allows labor to move to where the need is? Why not simplify the FDA pharmaceutical rules and allow European approved drugs in America? Why not allow terminal patients to try any experimental drug they can? It’s just plain stupid when the solutions are right before your eyes.

More supply means lower prices. Yet, the GOP simply asks people to pay more. When has any company used the “pay more for the same” strategy and succeeded? Why would anyone think that will work for politics?

The Dems know that “if it’s free it’s for me” and use it to their advantage. We know that supply side economics works, but instead we approach medical care like Keynesians (although, Keynes must be turning over in his grave over how his opinions and theories are being abused today).

The problem is the quality of new doctors. IMHO, you don't want just anybody making life and death decisions. I don't have a problem with expanding the number of nurse practicioners and physician assistants working under the supervision of docs.

Walgreens, CVS and few others (soon surely to be followed by Walmart and Costco etc.) are starting to set up the in-store "medical stations" where licensed RNs, for a reasonable price, may offer some medical services and referrals not requiring doctors license.

That's private enterprise providing solutions and fulfilling at least some of the unmet need, no thanks to the government, in fact, very limited due to the government regulations. But these are really a small-scale, "fill-in the gap" solutions instead of full-scale, "normal" convenience and budget policy options encouraged and made easier by the public policies.

What the GOP has failed to do is recognize the supply side solutions. ... Why not simplify the FDA pharmaceutical rules and allow European approved drugs in America? Why not allow terminal patients to try any experimental drug they can?

All excellent suggestions. In fact, Newt Gingrich from 1995 has battled the FDA for much faster approval of drugs and relaxed requirements for testing and the use of "experimental" drugs for "untreatable" diseases and "off-label" drugs that had similar chemical composition and/or clinical effects to approved drugs.

Unfortunately, the GOP - with the exception of leaders like Reagan and Gingrich - is not a supply-side party, Bush-Romney "establishment wing" of the party is very comfortable with "government knows best" and the top-down approach, as long as they, the "enlightened" Republicans, are in charge.

BTW, a side note about "top-down" approach - I saw Obama's "Strengthening the Middle Class" ad where he is claiming that "we tried the top-down approach and it didn't work..." Of course, it's an intellectually dishonest sophistry - describing supply-side economics as being "top-down" (play on derisive "trickle-down") while in reality it's the liberals who actually do practice top-down economics, i.e., government-centralized command and control economy. Since many people know that "top-down" approach is a failure, he is trying to subtly redefine and project that moniker from their failed politico-economic philosophy onto the free-market economy, flipping it on its head - just like they did with terms "liberal" and "progressive."

If conservatives don't quickly explain to people what the Obama's perverted redefinition of "top-down" means, it may just take hold and get stuck, while the "trickle-down" derision never really succeeded to scare people off from the supply-side.

They don't call it Stupid Party for nothing. Simple example I use is that stores sell more when items are "on sale" (JCPenny's botched no-"sales" strategy is the case in point). People easily understand that more products at lower prices is a better deal for them because they live it every day.

Republican "leaders" (with the notable exception of Reagan and Gingrich) are somehow incapable of articulating the benefits and defending the "goodness" of capitalism to "regular folks". Romney may "not apologize for his success" but he doesn't give anyone else the impression that capitalism is good for them, or the confidence that it works better for every "class," including the "poor," as opposed to liberal if it's free it's for me message that is very simple and very seductive.

Maybe it's because the Republican establishment and the GOP "leaders" don't really believe in free-market capitalism and (to quote George H.w. Bush, "voodoo") supply-side economics themselves and only pay it a lip service to keep getting elected.

Charles Murray wrote an excellent article about these exact problems with GOP's message (or lack of it) and, more specifically, inability of conservatives to articulate the message of capitalism:

< snip > ..... From the dawn of history until the 18th century, every society in the world was impoverished, with only the thinnest film of wealth on top. Then came capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Everywhere that capitalism subsequently took hold, national wealth began to increase and poverty began to fall. Everywhere that capitalism didn't take hold, people remained impoverished. Everywhere that capitalism has been rejected since then, poverty has increased.

Capitalism has lifted the world out of poverty because it gives people a chance to get rich by creating value and reaping the rewards. Who better to be president of the greatest of all capitalist nations than a man who got rich by being a brilliant capitalist?

Yet it hasn't worked out that way for Mr. Romney. "Capitalist" has become an accusation. The creative destruction that is at the heart of a growing economy is now seen as evil. Americans increasingly appear to accept the mind-set that kept the world in poverty for millennia: If you've gotten rich, it is because you made someone else poorer. ..... < snip >

We know that supply side economics works, but instead we approach medical care like Keynesians (although, Keynes must be turning over in his grave over how his opinions and theories are being abused today).

Keynes was a believer in and advocate of government fiscal "intervention" in times of economic distress but not of the top-down control of economy and industries, or effective takeover and/or "nationalization" or "socialization" of the industries and the economy.

Very good article on philosophic differences between Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes (with a touch of Hayek and the intellectual dishonesty by Paul Krugman thrown in) by Donald Boudreaux, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of "Hypocrites and Half-Wits":

I recently heard the radiology ‘community’ are not all that pleased they are required so many years of training, certification to ‘read’ x-rays and yet the TSA is ordered with minimal training to x-ray anybody/everybody getting on an airplane.

I figure it won't be long these TSA agents will have put in the hours to be qualified to replace high priced radiologists....

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.